Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 2582996" data-attributes="member: 5143">Honestly, I've played under a lot of DMs.&nbsp; I can say there are a lot of bad DMs around.&nbsp; That you've had some good experiences with DMs is good for you.&nbsp; However, I've played under..let me think....at least 20 different DMs in home games.&nbsp; I've played easily under another 20 or 30 in Living Greyhawk games.&nbsp; I'd say there are a lot of bad DMs.&nbsp; Some of them are made better by the fact that they are following the RAW and it ups the quality of their DMing.&nbsp; I can tell this because it's been mentioned by DMs at various tables in LG that &quot;if this wasn't LG, he wouldn't be using (insert rule here) because it was stupid&quot;.&nbsp; I, on the other hand, think removing the rule is stupid and would confuse the game too much.My players know that the rules are the primary goto for arbitration in the game.&nbsp; After that, if there is any dispute on HOW the rules are to be read, the DM decides.&nbsp; He is the referee after all.It hasn't created an adversarial relationship at all.&nbsp; Quite the contrary.&nbsp; Previously, when I ran 2nd edition D&amp;D, I would be continually questioned on every ruling as the players would question the logic of every decision, they'd argue realism at every turn.&nbsp; Now, we all understand how to rules work so there is no discussion about it unless a point comes up that isn't covered by the rules or we have 2 different interpretations of a rule.&nbsp; If it isn't covered by the rules, I make something up and we move on.&nbsp; If there is two different interpretations then I decide which one I want in my game and everyone agrees that it could be either way, so they accept that one way is as good as the other.We now feel we are all playing the same game instead of playing the game as defined by the DM.&nbsp; It isn't Majoru Oakheart's version of D&amp;D.&nbsp; It is D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 2582996, member: 5143"] Honestly, I've played under a lot of DMs. I can say there are a lot of bad DMs around. That you've had some good experiences with DMs is good for you. However, I've played under..let me think....at least 20 different DMs in home games. I've played easily under another 20 or 30 in Living Greyhawk games. I'd say there are a lot of bad DMs. Some of them are made better by the fact that they are following the RAW and it ups the quality of their DMing. I can tell this because it's been mentioned by DMs at various tables in LG that "if this wasn't LG, he wouldn't be using (insert rule here) because it was stupid". I, on the other hand, think removing the rule is stupid and would confuse the game too much. My players know that the rules are the primary goto for arbitration in the game. After that, if there is any dispute on HOW the rules are to be read, the DM decides. He is the referee after all. It hasn't created an adversarial relationship at all. Quite the contrary. Previously, when I ran 2nd edition D&D, I would be continually questioned on every ruling as the players would question the logic of every decision, they'd argue realism at every turn. Now, we all understand how to rules work so there is no discussion about it unless a point comes up that isn't covered by the rules or we have 2 different interpretations of a rule. If it isn't covered by the rules, I make something up and we move on. If there is two different interpretations then I decide which one I want in my game and everyone agrees that it could be either way, so they accept that one way is as good as the other. We now feel we are all playing the same game instead of playing the game as defined by the DM. It isn't Majoru Oakheart's version of D&D. It is D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification